[deleted]

[deleted]

All the examples for Axis attempts at espionage seem to have ended badly or even leaving them worse off because of turned agents; the Allies seemed to have much less problems in that regard, considering operations like Minemeat. Why was this?

Generally, I know that the interests of Germany and Japan first came together to stop the spread of communism, but what were some of the other reasons and interests of the parties that led to the ensuing negotiations.

The term "feudalism" often seems to be regarded as a deprecated term on /r/AskHistorians, but what terms are preferred?

Suppose I want to talk about a governmental-military arrangement in which people owe others service in exchange for land tenure, with reciprocal obligations between immediate superiors and inferiors taking precedence over broader obligations (e.g., to a supreme monarch or state). What should I say, in lieu of "feudalism?"

The term(s) needn't be a direct replacement for feudalism. In fact, they'd better not be, or we've actually achieved nothing in understanding in ditching the term feudalism. However, if, for example, feudalism as traditionally conceived actually had several components which aren't very closely related (e.g., a land-owning military class, a lack of strong central authority, etc), and it would be better to consider these separately, what are the terms for those components? Or, alternatively, if feudalism is best thought of as a particular case of some broader, more general pattern (maybe something like a Kautskyian "aristocratic empire"), then what's the terminology for that?

We develop apps for several US states and I am putting together a demo version. I want to use the (currently) fictional state of Franklin since it has historical legitimacy but I ran into a small problem: what is the two letter abbreviation? FR = France, FK = not safe, FN just does not convey meaning. Is there / Was there an official abbreviation for this state that never quite was?

I am especially interested in Bell, the breaking up of Bell, The Baby Bell's, IBM, Dell, the Tyson's Corner Virginia area's rise as a tech hub, as well as the History of Tech in Austin Tx, Dallas, TX, Seattle, Washington, and perhaps San Francisco, but I feel most of that has bee in the last 20 years.

My parents are asking me to help them find out some information on the value of an antique they have. The man I linked in this article was the first person to travel around the world via commercial means. He took videos of his travels, including the diamond mines in Africa, and also wrote a book about it. This is in the 1920's and 30's. They have those original reels and a signed copy of the book. They also own his house. Any help would be greatly appreciated! How much would something like this be worth, and how would you go about selling it?

At the beginning of the 17th century, the overwhelming majority of infantry firearms around the world were matchlocks; China, Japan, the 'Gunpowder Empires' of the Islamic world, and European states were all using matchlocks in concert with more traditional weapons, like spears, swords, and halberds. By the end of the 17th century, with the War of the Grand Alliance and the War of Spanish Succession, you see in Europe armies uniformly equipped with flintlock muskets, with bayonets by and large supplanting the pike, while Asian states tend to keep using matchlocks and traditional weapons well into the 19th century. As I understand it, linear warfare was about massing firepower through infantry lines, and replacing pikes with bayonet-fitted muskets gave an army more firepower than if it was splitting its forces between melee and missile infantry.

Was the adoption of flintlocks part of this tactical divergence? Did they offer the infantryman significantly greater firepower, and were they better suited to bayonet use than their matchlock predecessors?

What did Napoleon do on his spare time? What he do to spend time when he was not at war? What where he's hobbies?

Edit: amazing responses, thanks all!

I was reading something on Waterloo recently and it mentioned that manouevring numbers of conscripted troops was difficult, which for instance was why regiments would not usually advance in line, as the troops lacked the ability to keep cohesion while doing so.

Fast forward to 101 years later and the Battle of the Somme. My understanding is that Haig and other generals didn't believe the newly trained men of Kitchener's Army (volunteers rather than conscripts, but still not professionals) could handle anything more complex than walking slowly forward across No-Man's-Land and thus developed the plan of annihilating the German defences with artillery first, so that was all they would need to do.

So, now it's 1944 and Britain is preparing for D-Day. Their conscripted troops are now considered able to participate in complex combined ops.

What changed? Or are my assumptions incorrect?

I was reading about Julius Caesar and his relation to Aeneas and was wondering, how was myth used in Roman Politics? Was it quite common or only certain people? How did it affect people who only used their real relations in politics rather than mythical people?

The series is about Mary, Queen of Scots. I have just watched the first episode and some things seemed off. First, fireworks were fired for a wedding, did fireworks even excist in Europe back in 1557 (the year the series begins)? And second, Mary's behavior seems very girly and not royal overall, while it can be assumed she would be educated to rule and hold court. And last, the relations between royals and their servants seems to be a little bit too relaxed, in particular between Mary and her maids. Is this accurate or not?

Thanks for answering!

More specifically, how was war declared? Was there a code of ethics each nation followed to give the other nation time to prepare before an attack after the initial declaration of war? When the war was over, how long did it usually take to get the message out to all of the generals so the fighting would stop? Were there laws to allow messengers (such as the ones who would deliver that message that the war was over) free passage without harm?

I searched on this subreddit and on google and really couldn't find anything about it. I was just thinking about this today during my early modern history class and it raised my curiosity.

I Know a little about the fall of the Ottoman empire because of their alliance with Germany and a bit about the Sykes-Picot agreement but I'm having a hard time figuring out not just the physical construction but the political construction and the cultural construction changes which happened because of WWI. I am very interested in any good books where I could learn a proper narrative of this.

I've always wondered this. It seems as though they only ever banned British army bases or RUC stations. I know their objective was to drive the British out of the North, but I'm surprised they never tried to assassinate people with power closely linked to British control of Northern Ireland e.g. Ian Paisley.

As the title says. He is a christian himself and I never heard that before. Was he right that Christians were killed or prosecuted on the sole reason that their faith didn't meet the Nazi anti-christian agenda?

I know that food is an expresion of cultural values. I was just wondering if food recipes where a thing in the past, and which plate can be recreated today to know what these people ate.

[deleted]